Regarding the article "Schools, yes. Funding, well ..." (March 17): State Rep. Peter Buckley's sense of morality screams at him that it is "wrong to take away a retiree's pension." That's true. But what he doesn't mention is that competing PERS reform proposals do no such thing.

In fact, they don't reduce existing pension payments one penny. Instead, they attempt to constrain the cost of an out-of-control retirement system by limiting annual increases to such pensions. They do this to protect Oregon's most vulnerable citizens, who will most directly bear the brunt of public service reductions necessitated by rapidly rising PERS costs.

That's actually a very reasonable and moral approach to a huge fiscal problem, versus Buckley's statement, which at best should be described as a sin of omission, and at worst an untruth.

COURTNEY WILTON Southeast Portland

PERS reform is, once again, at the top of Page 1 ("PERS bills abound, but no consensus," March 18). The Oregonian's subheadline says, "The mounting tab threatens school budgets, but foes of cuts say unions are being scapegoated." Sounds nice and impersonal, eh? Why should anyone care about unions?

PERS isn't just some abstract acronym. It's not "unions" that would take a hit. It's people -- people who spent their working lives educating your children, putting out your fires, patrolling your streets and keeping you safe from criminals. They are people who made sure your neglected grandmother and the poor kid down the street had adequate care and enough to eat, along with many other important and necessary duties. And they weren't highly paid to do these jobs.

These people have made life plans based on Oregon's retirement system, including cost-of-living adjustments. Sure, renege on those promises and cut pensions. But then how about paying those raises that weren't paid back in 1979 when the 6 percent employer pickup started?

DAVID JAMES Sublimity

There are many philosophical, policy and budget issues that deeply divide Oregon Republicans and Democrats. But framing the debate over PERS reform as a partisan issue is a mistake.

True, Democratic legislators whose political careers depend on the public employee unions are leading the charge to resist reforms. But out here in the real world, nearly every Democrat I know recognizes the necessity of the reforms on the table. These reforms, as proposed by the Oregon Schools Boards Association, correct overcompensation that occurred through flukes and administrative fiat . They don't break reasonable promises to retirees.

We want an Oregon with social services that protect our most vulnerable and an education system that ensures our economic viability . After all, this is why we're Democrats in the first place.